Topics: R. 333 RoP
-
LD Munich, January 13, 2025, revised order on auxiliary requests, UPC_CFI_298/2023
The number of 55 auxiliary requests can be reasonable: Upon panel review the court views the number of 55 auxiliary requests as exceptionally high but not unreasonable. Considering the extreme complexity of the case (in particular in view of the number of grounds of invalidity raised), the importance of the patent at issue and the…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, January 14, 2024, order on panel review, UPC_CoA_651/2024
Order on security is case management and open for panel review (R. 333 RoP): Judge-rapporteur can issue an order for security of costs. There is no wording in R. 158 RoP that such orders shall be adopted by the panel. There is a broad scope for review of actions of the judge-rapporteur, as laid down…
2 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Mannheim, September 9, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_219/2023 and UPC_CFI_223/2023
If the redactions in Claimant’s reply brief in an infringement action are only subject to the non-technical part, it is not justified to grant the Defendant an extension of two months for filing its rejoinder brief re. this non-technical part starting with the date from having access to the unredcated version of the non-technical part…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, August 5, 2024, subsequent request to amend patent, UPC_CFI_363_2023
Rule 30.2 RoP leaves open the time of a decision on the admission of a subsequent request for amendment of the patent: The time of the decision is at the discretion of the court. The judge-rapporteur may postpone such a decision. A rejecting order is not required. As long as the subsequent request for amendment…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, March 21, 2024, order, UPC_CoA_486/2023
An appeal against a decision of the judge rapporteur can be admissible if it is the subject of the appeal whether the judge rapporteur was entitled to issue the decision under appeal.: R 220.3 RoP provides for the admission of an appeal against an order issued by a panel. However, the order under appeal was…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, 25 January 2024, decision, UPC_CFI_559935/2023
Background: The plaintiff filed a claim for damages subsequent to a German patent infringement case in which the defendant had been found to infringe the German part of EP 1 740 740 B1. The defendant objected to the jurisdiction of the court regarding the damages claim. This objection was allowed by the judge-rapporteur, as per…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, 30 January 2024, procedural order (review R.333), UPC_CFI_230/2023
Amount of fine in the event of a breach of a confidentiality order: The decision relates to a review according to Rule 333 RoP of point 6.) of a confidentiallity order issued by the judge rapporteur on 19 December 2023. It emphasized that while the Paris and Munich orders pertain to the same protected confidential…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, 24 January 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_230/2023
Review Procedure comes before Appeal Process: Case management decisions must first be reviewed by the panel under Rule 333 RoP before they can be appealed under Rule 220 RoP (cf. UPC Court of Appeal (n°486/2023, §6). Consequently, if the review under Rule 333 RoP of a confidentiality order is still pending, a request for leave…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, 11 December 2023, order of the court of first instance of the UPC, UPC_CFI_9/2023
A notification by the judge-rapporteur under Rule 20.2 RoP that a preliminary objection is to be dealt in the main proceedings cannot be challenged on appeal, nor can it be made the subject of a review by the panel pursuant to Rule 333.1 RoP.: The judge-rapporteur and not the panel shall decide on inadmissible applications…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.